otium cum dignitate: Boo-birds

About

New Music

The Arcade Fire: Neon Bible
A good friend of mine convinced me to buy "Funeral," Arcade Fire's first album, last year and I'd say my reaction to that album was mixed. I recognized that the band had some unique ideas, and an interesting sound, but it just didn't really fit my musical tastes. "Neon Bible" may be less inventive, but all in all, I think it is more enjoyable to listen to than "Funeral." However, I actually went to an Arcade Fire show here in DC last weekend, and I have to admit that the songs they played from "Funeral" were much more energetic and exciting than the selections from "Neon Bible." The concert, like the recordings, come off as highly orchestrated and refined rock compositions. There is little wasted space, and the music features an interesting, although somewhat off-putting blend of instruments and vocals. The finished product takes some getting used to, but once you've acquired the Arcade Fire taste, it's hard to put these albums down. (****)
Bloc Party: A Weekend in the City
Sure enough, Bloc Party validated my predictions and avoided the dreaded "sophomore slump" with their second album. While Silent Alarm was a bit more polished, A Weekend in the City takes more chances, and offers a more diverse and creative set of songs than the band's first album. There are clear allusions to Radiohead's Kid A throughout this album, but Bloc Party does a good job of continuing to hone their own unique sound. "I Still Remember" is the sort of anthemic single that could propel Bloc Party onto the national spotlight. (****)
Thom Yorke: The Eraser
This is basically a solo version of Kid A, although you can't really tell it's solo since there isn't really any instrumental background, only synthesized stuff like on Kid A and Amnesiac. I like this album, but i'm still really looking forward to the full band's new album which is expected in a couple of months. The Eraser is basically an addendum to Kid A/Amnesiac, and that's ok. But im excited to hear what's next. (****)
The Strokes: First Impressions of Earth
This is my first Strokes CD, and the first album in a recent foray of CD buying over the last week or so. Knowing almost nothing about the band, I first listened to this CD with an open mind, and I liked what I heard. Although there aren't many especially interesting songs, the overall sound is pleasing, and even a bit catchy at times. To me, Julian Casablancas' singing basically makes this band what it is. He has an extremely deep voice, and he features his impressive singing ability much more so on this album than on the other two. I went out and bought "Is this it" as an encore, but I am so far dissapointed in the older album. Sorry, AMG, but we just can't agree this time. (***)
Brad Mehldau: Day is Done
Another fine addition to the Brad Mehldau collection. On this newest album, the trio welcomes Jeff Ballard on drums to replace Jorge Rossy at least temporarily, and I must say Ballard provides a refreshing new feel to a trio that was in danger of becoming somewhat repetitive and dull. As usual, Mehldau delights those of us who supplement our Jazz listening with recordings from the real world as he begins this album with a rendition on the Radiohead composition "Knives Out." This is one of Mehldau's better albums in recent years. I don't want to completely sell out Rossy, but this trio seems to have more energy and spontaneity than it had on the previous few albums. (*****)
Bloc Party: Silent Alarm
After hearing a short clip online, I decided to see these guys perform at Music Midtown. Typically with rock-type bands, I know whether I'm going to like them or not within the first 30 seconds. Clearly, since I just bought the CD, Bloc Party impressed me from the outset and maintained my interest throughout their hour-long performance. In danger of becoming just another English band in the form of Coldplay or Keane, Bloc Party has thus far succeeded with a unique sound that blends the smooth and clean style of those former two bands with the type of rock heard on some of, dare I say, Radiohead's older albums like the Bends and Pablo Honey. Just released in March, this first album has a lot of good stuff on it. Bloc Party has serious potential. (****)
Joe Lovano: I'm All For You
As far as ballad-oriented albums go, this one is pretty damn good. Offering fresh renditions of standards as well as a few originals, Lovano's tone and expression remains unique but also traditional as he moves around these charts and improvises. This is really my first exposure to Lovano other than seeing him live once in New York. I like the album a lot and personally think he handles the ballads much better than Michael Brecker on his Ballad Book album a few years ago. (****)

Places to Visit

Photo Albums

Blog powered by Typepad
Member since 04/2004

« Aborting Roe | Main | Three Weeks »

Wednesday, April 12, 2006

Boo-birds

Today, I went to the Nationals home opener at RFK stadium and witnessed the overwhelming booing that rained down on Dick Cheney as he threw out the first pitch. It was almost hard to bear.

I'm not a hardcore Republican, but I felt that the fans were really out of line. I mean, why do DC people feel as if everything involves a political statement? We are there watching baseball, and it is kind of neat to see one of our top elected officials paying homage to the game as well. The least you can do is sit there and keep your mouth shut if you don't approve. The boos were really too much.

On a side note, the Nationals sucked it up today on the field, and I do not have any problem with fans booing them (or at least their GM Bowden) for the pathetic showing on the field.

"New York third baseman David Wright said he was thrilled to meet Cheney and shrugged off the booing.

'When you’ve got 50 percent of America that’s Republican, 50 percent that’s Democrat, you’re probably going to get mixed reviews,' Wright said."

Haha. Well said, David Wright. But I still like to keep my politics and baseball separated.

Wednesday, April 12, 2006 at 12:08 AM in Sports | Permalink

Comments

Clue #1: I was there and booing.

Posted by: Secret Santa | Wednesday, April 12, 2006 at 10:54 PM

Dear Secret Santa,

You've been revealed. I looked up your IP. Who else do I know from Lexington, Kentucky?

Cmon man, why cloak yourself in shadows? Is it to expose your ignorance of what the phrase ad hominem means?

Posted by: otium cum dignitate | Thursday, April 13, 2006 at 05:20 PM

yeah mr. secret santa-we now know-you're travis from kentucky. you've been revealed by zach's superb spying abilities!

Posted by: marlowe | Thursday, April 13, 2006 at 05:22 PM

Law school's boring, but not boring enough for me to have the time to mask my IP address. Zach should know my habit for abusing e-anonymity. I'll admit it -- sometimes, I get bored and try to start pointless fights (even with strangers).

What I won't concede is that the distinction I sought to draw between ad hominem and ad argumentum was incorrect. Please read Santa's first comment. Santa's attack is directed at (1) Marlowe's comment and (2) Marlowe's opinions. An ad hominem argument is not technically an argument at all. It is a fallacy. It is fallacious insofar as it seeks to reject one's argument by attacking an irrelevant aspect of his character. Here's an example:

M: Abortion is terrorism.
S: Of course you'd say that -- you're fat.
M: But what about the support I gave?
S: Wrong. You're fat, therefore you must say abortion is terrorism.

There are some flaws in this example, but, as a whole, it is passable. The hallmark of an ad hominem fallacy is the direction and justification of one's claim go to the characteristics of a person, rather than his argument. One's (1) comment and (2) opinions are not part of one's man, one's person. This is where I suppose opinions may differ. My guiding authority is the literal meaning of "hominem." I'm no Latin scholar, but in my understanding of it, homiem most closely corresponds to "man" or "person." You who swap Scalia facts between classes doubtlessly appreciate this line of argument.

Furthermore, describing an argument as "inane" and "tactless" doesn't necessarily mean one disagrees with it, or at least seeks to disclaim it. While it surely provides adequate grounds for inference, let's be painfully clear: if I say that your argument is stupid, it isn't necessarily so that I think it's not true, or that I seek to argue it. It's merely critique, albeit mealy-mouthed. An ad hominem necessarily seeks to reject a claim.

Lastly, I'd like to stoop lower still. In fact, I'll just offer a tidbit of a recent dialogue with a good friend -- let's call him Z.

T: seriously though, why do you think i'm wrong about the distinction between ad hominem and ad argumentum
Z: because it was an ad hominem attack
T: dude, that's a tautological argument
Z: mostly i wa sjust...ok. fuck that word. thats one of the stupidest words. and law people like to use it to sound smart. my moot court judge used it. i wanted to punch her in the face. she's stupid.

Two disclaimers: (1) I hardly ever believe what I say; (2) this is the internet.

And an apology: Sorry for ruffling any feathers, sorry for peppering this comment with double negatives. I'm a tired soul who'd rather quibble over things about which he doesn't give a damn than prepare for exams that'll determine how easy his life is.

Posted by: Travis Lloyd | Thursday, April 13, 2006 at 06:14 PM

Cherry Blossoms 06? Zach, come on.

Posted by: Travis Lloyd | Thursday, April 13, 2006 at 06:19 PM

What? Is there something about a cherry blossoming that you find offensive?

N: Dave, let me eat your cherry!
D: WHAAAATTTTTT?
N: Cmon dave, im eating your cherry!!
D: WHA WHA WHA WHATTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT?
N: IM EATING YOUR CHERRY DAVE, WATCH ME WHEN I EAT YOUR CHERRY!!!!

Posted by: otium cum dignitate | Friday, April 14, 2006 at 09:16 AM

Wow. I wonder if we can rent out those two rooms in Sentelle for our summer vacation. I suppose we'd also have to enlist D & C to fight in the hallway. And we'd have to buy some more socks. And station Fozzy at the other end of the hall.

Posted by: Travis Lloyd | Friday, April 14, 2006 at 09:54 AM

Mmmm. Socks are sexy...

Posted by: Some Character | Friday, April 14, 2006 at 11:45 AM

Not a "hardcore Republican," Zach? i hope you are not any type of Republican. I didn't think the Russian Orthodoxers were big "values voters." Boo for Pubs. and for Cheney. F that guy. F him hard and F him long.

it would be something else if the Bush Admin. officials ever faced public criticism, but as we all know, they never do; they just pack arenas with pre-approved fellaters. Cheney deserves to hear some boos because otherwise he never does.

Posted by: Allen | Saturday, April 15, 2006 at 12:28 AM

K, so now that I have been cleared of the "crime against humanitity" that is being Santa, i thought i'd post something about the Ad Hominem/ad Arguendum thing:

Both necessarily reject the claim in question, and both are fallacies imagine the following hypothetical:

person A: Proposition P
ad hominem-ing Marlowe: Person A, You're Gay.
ad Arguendo-ing Travis: Proposition P is just stupid (tactless, innane, whatever).

Both marlowe and Travis are rejecting proposition P (in formal, symbolic logic, they are arguing ~P.)

the flaw is that neither has actually addressed the truth-value of P; Marlowe has just said, in effect, that P can't be true because the person arguing P sleeps with men.
Travis said, in effect, that P can't be true because it was not spoken artfully.

both Travis and Marlowe are 1)rejecting the comment and 2) retards.

Posted by: Jordan | Sunday, April 16, 2006 at 12:05 PM

P/S see that, there, at the end, that was an ad hominem attack.

Posted by: Jordan | Sunday, April 16, 2006 at 12:06 PM

I don't think an ad argumentum is necessarily an attack on the character of an argument, or the artfulness with which it is stated. Never did I purport to address the "truth value" of the argument. In fact, I only addressed what "ad hominem" meant.

I think before we get giddy at the prospect of clearing out the cobwebs on our understanding of 200-level Philosophy classes, we must read the language before us, carefully.

Posted by: Travis Lloyd | Sunday, April 16, 2006 at 10:11 PM

Thank goodness I'm not going to law school and won't turn into you pedantic douchebags

Just kidding

Posted by: Skip | Thursday, April 20, 2006 at 05:25 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.

Recent Reads

Erik Larson: The Devil in the White City: Murder, Magic, and Madness at the Fair that Changed America
I had been meaning to read this one for awhile. With some persuasion, I finally picked it up a couple of weeks ago, and I'm glad I did. This is a nonfiction book that reads so much like a novel, that I found myself repeatedly checking the back flap to make sure it was, indeed, listed as "History." Larson interweaves a personalty-driven historical account of the Chicago World Fair construction with the gruesome plot of a professional serial killer named H.H. Holmes. Well-written, informative, and a redeeming read -- few history books are this entertaining. (*****)
Michael Chabon: The Amazing Adventures of Kavalier & Clay
This book is long, and took me nearly all summer to read, but the time spent was well worth it. The plot of this book is somewhat convoluted and hard to really identify with, but the writing is really good, and it's probably a good idea that I took my time with the reading. Chabon has one section on the war that seems really pointless and unnecessary. The book stumbles a bit towards the end, but again the writing makes up for any deficiencies of plot or structure. (****)
Michael Lewis: Moneyball: The Art of Winning an Unfair Game
I finally read this seminal baseball book. And yes, I have read other books since finishing the last baseball book reviewed here. Moneyball brought to the forefront the "sabermetric" revolution in baseball statistics. Lewis uses the example of the Oakland A's management to explain how low-budget baseball teams can stay competitive by exploiting inefficiencies in the market. This is probably the best sports book I have ever read. It's extremely well-done, and absolutely necessary reading for any serious baseball fan. I cannot believe I waited so long to finally read it. (*****)
John Schuerholz: Built to Win: Inside Stories and Leadership Strategies from Baseball's Winningest GM
An interesting glimpse into the inner workings of the Braves' front-office over the last fifteen years. This book is an easy read, but probably less interesting if one isn't a Braves fan. Schuerholz seems quite confident in his approach to the GM position, and rightly so. But is it a coincidence that the Braves' first dissapointing season in fifteen years came after this book was published? (***)
Scott Turow: One L: The Turbulent True Story of a First Year at Harvard Law School
Maybe I should have read this before deciding on law school. Scott Turow recounts his first year at Harvard Law School, and the day-to-day tribulations bear a striking resemblance to my first year at GW law. One L helped me to realize that I wasn't the only one feeling so distraught during 1L. It was therapeutic to read after the first year, but could scare one off if read the summer before beginning law school. (***)
Steven D. Levitt: Freakonomics
After trying to wait for it to come out in paperback, I finally read my dad's hardcover copy (that I bought him for Christmas). Freakonomics is short and somewhat pointless, but it is interesting (I relegated it to the beach over spring break so I wasn't expecting much). The authors introduce a couple of interesting studies that attempt to undermine basic assumptions on crime and education, to name a few topics. It's probably worth your read, but not until it comes out in paperback. (***)
Joseph J. Ellis: His Excellency: George Washington
This book, bearing the title of both my city and law school, is a rare example of really good biographical writing. By condensing this candid account of Washington's personality into a mere 275 pages, Ellis somehow avoids what seems an inevitable verbosity with most biographies. Ellis attempts to overcome the stale mythologies that surround most of Washington's legacy, but finds that even the most honest account of America's hero must admit a certain amount of heroic attributes. Although I learned a lot about Washington from this book, Ellis' writing itself is what really impressed me most. For aspiring non-fiction writers (or perhaps young law students), I recommend this book as a study in how to maintain high-quality writing, even when addressing the most academic topics. (****)
Bill Clinton: My Life
To be honest, I may have learned more about American Politics from this book than I did from any individual class at college. The best part of this book, though, is the first half that details Clinton's journey from a fatherless, poor home in the middle of Arkansas to the Oval Office. At times, Clinton writes brilliantly and evocatively. This book certainly drags on far longer than it needs to. But a faithful and complete reading of the book will give the reader an in-depth understanding of Bill Clinton as both a person and a politician. (****)
Khaled Hosseini: Kite Runner
This is the only normal-sized book that I have ever finished in less than 24 hrs. All 371 pages of it. Needless to say, this novel reads extremely fast. Set in Afghanistan, this book helps to familiarize us with a region of the world that Westerners struggle to understand and develop. Chilling accounts of Russian and Taliban brutality in Afghanistan enlighten the reader about what it actually was like to live over there during the last few decades. Although the story told here is gripping and persuasive, the historical and cultural background of this book made a more lasting impression on me than the characters and plot. (***)
John Searles: Strange But True
This was a perfect page-turner during my week at the beach. Searles writes a lot like David Sedaris. Sardonic and humorous, Searles' characters occupy the fence between caricature and grotesque. A well-written, well-organized novel, but still a "beach-book" nonetheless. (***)